Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I appreciate the opportunity to outline Labor's position on the government's Interactive Gambling Amendment Bill 2016. While Labor recognises well-regulated gambling has a place in Australian society and, indeed, that many Australians enjoy a responsible punt, the growth of illegal online gambling is of great concern to Labor. We are concerned because times have changed. The growth of digital technology, including smart phones, allows Australians to wager and gamble whenever and wherever they choose. We are in a digital age, an age of rapid change especially in relation to technology. Most of us have handheld devices—smart phones—that allow us to access a range of services, apps and information by simply swiping our screens. With this change in technology has come an increase in the number of offshore operators. We know that this has impacted on problem gamblers.

Labor believes that it is time to do more and to amend this act to prohibit these operators and stop the growth of illegal online gambling. Labor agrees that the government's Interactive Gambling Amendment Bill picks up on some of the concerns around the growth of illegal online gambling. It will also go some way to improving the protections for those who choose to wager within an online environment. The majority of people who bet do enjoy it and gamble in a responsible manner. However, Labor also knows that gambling our community can, in some cases, have devastating consequences—social, financial and emotional consequences. That is why we have always maintained a strong stance on ensuring appropriate harm minimisation measures are in place to protect and assist our community.

Labor broadly supports the bill's main focus, which sets out to bolster the enforcement of the Interactive Gambling Act 2001. What Labor wants to ensure is that these new reforms will be about protecting people and about mitigating the effects of problem gambling more broadly. Currently, illegal offshore providers can target Australian gamblers even though they operate outside the country. Labor recognises that this practice has to stop. We know that this bill will go some way to stopping these operators in the responsible jurisdictions from trading in Australia illegally, but we are not naive: illegal offshore gambling operators will still try to operate in Australia and we should continue to look at innovative ways and means to stop this from happening.

We agree with the reform in this bill that seeks to prohibit click-to-call in-play betting services. We have seen concerns in past years about the links between gambling and sporting incidents and the impact of such links on match outcomes. We also know that this type of click-to-call betting is linked with problem gambling. Placing numerous bets in a short period of time does have the capacity to lead to problem gambling. Evidence to date suggests that young men are particularly vulnerable to this type of wagering and the addiction that can arise from it. From a perspective of harm minimisation, what is proposed is a sensible way forward and we support the prohibition of click-to-call in-play betting.

One area that Labor will continue to watch very closely is the in-play betting in licensed venues and how the government continues to tackle this into the future. To be clear, Labor does not support a proliferation of in-play terminals in venues. We do not support a shift from tethered terminals in venues to electronic mobile services. However, as this is the government's bill and we cannot be certain of how the government will deal with this form of on-premise betting into the future, we are concerned about what this means. Within the explanatory memorandum, a new definition of place-based betting services clarifies that electronic betting terminals can continue to be provided in places where the provider is licensed under a law of a state or territory to provide such services. Labor will be watching very carefully to see if any expansion of these services does occur and what the government response is if this does happen. We assume that the government will act if proliferation of mobile devices in licensed premises does occur.

We know that the O'Farrell review highlighted that Australia's consumer protection was weak and inconsistent. As I have stated, Labor is supportive of harm minimisation and strengthening consumer protection when it comes to problem gambling. We think this bill, however, could be improved in some aspects. We have already acknowledged the gambling can—and in some cases has already has already—have devastating social, financial and emotional consequences for Australians. Problem gambling can and has ruined lives. We know that improving protections for consumers is a good thing.

While we welcome the government's response to the O'Farrell review, which stated it will aim to agree on a consumer protection model within 12 months, we welcome the commitment by the Commonwealth, state and territory ministers in November last year to work together to develop a national consumer protection framework and we are supportive of the establishment of the national consumer protection framework, what we do not want to do is wait for another three years for this important work to be completed. So, while we welcome progress, our message for the government today is that they really need to get on with the work that is required, without delay.

With regard to credit betting: Labor knows that gambling in our community, as I have said, can have devastating impacts. So we are a little surprised that in this bill the government has not included any reform around the banning of credit betting, especially when we consider the coalition's policy on problem gambling, where it flagged the prohibition of credit betting back in 2013. And here we are: it is 2017.

For the past three or four years, the coalition has had a policy position on this banning of credit betting, and yet in its first tranche of reform it does not seem to deal with this very issue. That begs the question: why has the government not dealt with credit betting within the reform of this Interactive Gambling Act? This is particularly so, given that the minister has asserted that he has been very keen to ban this type of betting. To strengthen harm minimisation for problem gamblers, I want to indicate that Labor would certainly support the government taking that direction.

To continue with the theme of protection, I wish to speak on a matter of significant and widespread public concern that has gone hand in hand with the growth of online betting in Australia. Many Australians continue to have concerns around the promotion of betting odds and gambling advertising, especially during live sporting broadcasts. I am sure, Mr Acting Deputy President Whish-Wilson, that you understand exactly what I am referring to. There are existing safeguards to restrict gambling advertising and betting odds on television and radio in Australia. But it is apparent that they do not go far enough to address community concerns.

In early February 2017, Labor moved a second reading amendment designed to protect Australians, including children, and calling for action to ensure that live sporting broadcasts are free from intrusive gambling advertising and betting odds promotion. Now, that motion was narrowly defeated in the House and, despite voting against Labor's motion, the responsible government minister did put it on the public record that the coalition does also share some of these concerns. He said that the Turnbull government 'certainly acknowledged the concerns which many Australians have in relation to gambling advertising.' Further, the Minister for Communications, Minister Fifield, was quoted in a Radio Australia news story recently as saying in a statement:

… the Government was aware of community concern about the issue, but … "Broadcasters have a responsibility under the co-regulatory framework to ensure that their advertising meets community expectations."

What is telling is that some of the insightful and community-minded players are speaking out on this issue themselves. In the same Radio Australia news story that I just referred to, Damian McIver mentioned two concerns that high-profile AFL players have about the prevalence of gambling—particularly gambling advertisements. The Geelong defender Harry Taylor is actually quoted as saying:

I've got three kids at home and when my eldest can name a lot of the ads on TV, that is a bit of a worry.

Indeed. Taylor's comments follow comments from Western Bulldogs defender Easton Wood, who posted his views on Twitter in February this year, saying:

Gambling advertising is out of control and I think it needs to change …

…   …   …

The obvious issue here is the effect this advertising has on children every time they watch us pull on our boots.

I think that sums up the community concern in a very clear and simple sentence.

In an article on the same topic, The Age recently published an article by Jon Pierik, reporting that the AFL commissioner Kim Williams had expressed concern at the level and nature of gambling advertising during match broadcasts, and that he is understood to be putting together a paper about his concerns.

In support of our second reading amendment, my Labor colleagues in the other place made reference to research that was undertaken to explain further this community concern around advertising for gambling during live broadcasts of sport. This research, undertaken by Deakin University, points out a number of very concerning issues with regard to children and gambling advertising on television. I just want to spend a little time this evening going through the findings of the research, because it is another piece of evidence to support Labor's concerns around the possibility of legislation to improve outcomes for Australians with regard to advertising of gambling.

The research from Deakin found that over 90 per cent of children—90 per cent!—can recall having seen an advertisement for sports betting. Three-quarters of children aged eight to 16 years can recall the name of at least one sports-betting brand and approximately a quarter can recall four brands or more. This is absolutely amazing evidence to indicate the impact of advertising on the scale that we are seeing it right now in our country. Seventy-five per cent of children think that gambling is a normal or common part of sport. Parents also conveyed concerns, including that gambling advertising is so prevalent that it is changing the way their kids think about and talk about sport.

This is what the kids communicated to researchers about gambling advertising. I will use their own words, because they are highly instructive. A 15-year-old boy: 'I don't think they're good for kids. They're trying to make it cool. They put them during sport, when kids are watching.' Another boy, 13 years old: 'They shouldn't be allowed during sport, because lots of kids watch it. Ads pull you in—it's bad.' A 15-year-old boy: 'Ads for sports betting tell you to bet with them and make it look like you're going to win. They make it look positive and fun.' And a 10-year-old boy: 'The advertisement convinces you to bet. You can get your money back if you lose by eight points.' Out of the mouths of babes we are getting serious instruction on the need for some serious change with regard to this problem in our community. When we look at these findings, we can understand why parents are worried about their kids being subjected to gambling advertising during live sporting events.

Labor understands that Australians want to keep broadcasts of live sport and gambling as separate things. It is in everyone's interests to ensure that children do not associate betting and gambling as a normal part of watching sport on television. And yet these commercials continue to intrude upon our nation's love of sport, and they cause significant public concern.

Following the leadership of and the intervention by the Labor government in 2013 in this area, the broadcast industry responded to address public concerns and develop rules set to restrict gambling advertising in live sports broadcasting and the promotion of betting odds in particular. While the new code of practice limits the promotion of live odds in particular and restricts gambling ads, it does continue to allow two important elements: firstly, the promotion of betting odds half an hour before play and in the half hour after play by clearly identified gambling representatives; and, secondly, commercials relating to betting or gambling before play has commenced, during scheduled breaks, during unscheduled breaks and after play has concluded. That is to say that the code of practice allows significant windows of opportunity for gambling advertising around the edges of live sports broadcasts.

The time has come for the government to change this reality. The broadcast industry and sporting codes need to accept that gambling advertising before and during live sports broadcasts is indeed contrary to community standards and they need to amend the broadcasting codes of practice accordingly. Current restrictions should be extended to ensure that there is no promotion of betting odds or gambling advertising at all in the 30 minutes before play and that there is no gambling advertising at all during scheduled breaks such as half-time or unscheduled breaks such as weather delays. It goes without saying that current exemptions for horseracing, harness racing and greyhound racing would continue to apply. The Melbourne Cup would not be affected, for example; that is to say that Labor does not propose to prohibit gambling advertising and betting-odds promotion around the broadcast of those forms of entertainment: horseracing, harness racing or greyhound racing.

In calling on the government to work with industry on a transition plan to phase out gambling advertising and betting-odds promotion over time, Labor adopts a pragmatic approach. Labor is conscious of the need to address public interest considerations in a way that does not impose unnecessary financial and administrative burdens on providers of broadcasting services. We are not proposing an immediate blanket ban on gambling advertising or betting-odds promotion in broadcasting. In calling for a transitional approach over time and a targeted approach in respect of live sporting broadcasts, Labor affords industry the time and flexibility needed to alter current business practices and contractual arrangements.

A consultative approach is part and parcel of Labor's approach. Our second reading amendment outlines and continues the conversation that was started with industry in 2013 by the Gillard government, and it supports a continuation of that consultative approach between government, broadcasters and sporting organisations to address community concerns. Labor's approach demonstrates an understanding of and a confidence in the co-regulatory system of broadcast regulation that was enshrined in the Broadcasting Services Act 1992. Under this system, industry has the opportunity to develop codes of practice to address matters of concern to the community and where a code of practice is not operating to provide appropriate community safeguards the government regulator, the ACMA, may step in and regulate by way of a program standard.

I note that some sectors of the industry disagree that there is a problem with the current level of gambling advertising. In their media release just last week, Free TV stated that Labor's proposals were 'unwarranted' and that 'commercial broadcasters already have the most comprehensive, targeted set of restrictions on the promotion of betting services of any media platform in Australia today' and they declared that 'complaints about betting are low'. Commercial Radio Australia described Labor's proposal as 'unnecessary and counterproductive' and stated that 'any further restrictions cannot be justified'. But Labor regards it as appropriate that the industry has the opportunity to amend their codes of practice to address genuine community concern. On this I note that Labor's proposal does not dictate the terms, the timing or the mechanisms by which the broadcasting industry might phase out gambling and betting promotion during live sports broadcasts.

Labor also regards the system of co-regulation as an effective mechanism for dealing with matters that the industry may find challenging to deal with. Labor understands that betting and gambling advertising represents a significant revenue stream to industry and that it may be challenging for industry to wean itself off such lucrative arrangements in the current media environment. On this matter, it is instructive to note the explanatory memorandum to the Broadcasting Services Act acknowledges:

Areas such as … advertising, are matters of community concern which could conflict with a service provider’s responsibility to its shareholders to maximise profits.

This part—that is, part 9 of the act—that empowers the ACMA to impose direct regulation by way of program standards code, where codes of practice have failed, aims to balance the costs and benefits of the community's regulatory needs with the profit based nature of commercial service providers.

Labor's approach is transitional and targeted and therefore responds to public concern while acknowledging the pressures the broadcasting sector is under. Labor wants to work towards a genuine solution. That is why we are calling on the government and on industry to step up and progress these important consumer safeguards and address this significant issue of community concern.

I move the second reading amendment on sheet 8048 standing in my name:

At the end of the motion, add:

", but the Senate calls on the Government to work with the broadcasting industry and national sporting organisations on a transition plan to phase out the promotion of betting odds and commercials relating to betting or gambling before and during live sporting broadcasts, with a view to their prohibition.".

I thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President, for time in the chamber to address this important community concern. I hope the government will be able to work to advance a response to those genuine concerns that are held by parents and sporting heroes alike.

Skye Kakoschke-Moore (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Interactive Gambling Amendment Bill 2016. The bill contains proposed amendments to the Interactive Gambling Act, the Australian Communications and Media Authority Act and the regulations made under the Interactive Gambling Act. The bill contains a number of proposed amendments which seek to clarify legislation regarding illegal offshore gambling and seeks to strengthen the enforcement provisions under the Interactive Gambling Act.

The Interactive Gambling Act was introduced by the government following the findings of the Senate Select Committee on Information Technology's report into online gambling and the Productivity Commission report of 1999 into gambling industries and in response to concerns about the effects that online gambling has on Australians. The Productivity Commission report of 1999 found that problem gamblers comprise 15 per cent of regular, non-lottery gamblers and account for about $3.5 billion in expenditure annually. That is about one-third of the gambling industry's total market. They lose on average $12,000 per year, compared with just under $650 for other gamblers. That prevalence of problem gambling is related to the degree of accessibility of problem gambling.

Since the legislation was enacted, it has done little to prevent the spread of online gambling. The legislation is now 16 years old and has been outdated and outpaced by the rapid increase in online gambling and aggressive practices of the online gambling providers to entice customers. The proposed bill seeks to clarify that it is illegal for overseas gambling companies to offer gambling products to Australians unless they hold a licence issued by a state or territory. It will introduce a new civil penalty infringement notice regime to be administered by ACMA. The bill will also prohibit click-to-call in-play betting services by tightening the definition of a 'telephone betting service', with the effect that it will no longer be possible for a customer to place a bet during a sporting event without ever speaking to an operator. Instead, the bill would require dealings with customers to be entirely by way of spoken conversations between the customer and an operator.

The bill amends the complaint-handling process by providing that ACMA is responsible for all stages of the complaint-handling process, with the removal of current mandatory requirements for ACMA to refer matters to the AFP. It will also enable the minister to determine by way of legislative instrument for the purposes of the act whether a specific thing is or is not a sporting event. The bill will require ACMA to maintain a register of eligible, regulated interactive gambling services in an effort to raise awareness amongst customers about which services to avoid because of their exclusion from that register. It will introduce measures relating to illegal offshore gambling activity. These would allow ACMA to disclose information obtained through its powers under the IGA to the Department of Immigration and Border Protection and to foreign regulators. The bill will enable ACMA to notify the Department of Immigration and Border Protection of information relating to names of directors or principals of offending gambling services so that their names are placed on the movement alert list.

Finally, the bill will remove the requirement for a report on contraventions of part 7A of the act to be prepared and tabled in parliament each calendar year. The explanatory memorandum advises that this information will now be included in ACMA's annual report, which will be tabled in parliament. However, the amendments proposed in the bill represent only the first stage of the government's process to implement the recommendations of the 2015 Review of Illegal Offshore Wagering, led by the Hon. Barry O'Farrell.

The Nick Xenophon Team supports the bill. I want to make that clear. However, we remain concerned that the bill does not go far enough to keep pace with the explosion of online gambling and, in particular, online sports betting. Online gambling has grown to the point that the industry now outpaces other forms of gambling. People bet online using smartphones, tablets and other digital devices. Online gambling at the touch of a button anytime, anywhere poses risks to those battling gambling addictions and those who are vulnerable to developing gambling addiction. In 2014 $2.4 billion dollars was spent on online gambling by Australians. This is double the amount of 10 years earlier. The 2015 O'Farrell review found that the number of active online wagering accounts in Australia grew from 200,000 in 2010 to 800,000 in 2014.

The minister has foreshadowed there will be further bills which will seek to put in place some protection for gamblers. The government announced in April 2016 that it would implement 18 of the 19 recommendations in the 2015 O'Farrell review in a three-stage process. Whilst this news is welcome to the Nick Xenophon Team, we believe the government has missed an opportunity to debate a more comprehensive and more effective bill now. This is why my colleague Senator Xenophon will be moving amendments that incorporate many aspects of his private senator's bill, the Interactive Gambling Amendment (Sports Betting Reform) Bill 2015.

These amendments tackle many issues not addressed in the government's bill, including prohibitions on microbetting, prohibitions on offering credit and banning the broadcasting of sports betting ads during sports games and G-rated programs when children are watching. Importantly, these amendments also establish a National Self-Exclusion Register, which was recommended in the O'Farrell Review, as well as the establishment of an interactive gambling regulator.

The Nick Xenophon Team's position on gambling reform and curtailing predatory gambling is well known. We continue to push for reform in this area. I have seen firsthand the devastation that gambling addiction causes families though my work in Senator Xenophon's office and now in my own. Over many years I dealt with countless desperate constituents whose families have suffered emotionally and financially because of gambling addictions. It was the families' stories that propelled me to stand for the Senate as part of the Nick Xenophon Team.

In my first speech I spoke about the call that provided me with the impetus to drive change through policy as a senator. I had taken a call from a woman whose husband was addicted to online sports betting. She had just discovered they had lost hundreds of thousands of dollars and in the coming weeks they would also lose their home. She was desperate and she did not know where else to go for help. I stayed on the phone with her while she cried. I would meet her and her husband in person soon after, and with Nick we worked to do what we could to help them try to rebuild their lives. This call was one of many I answered about the devastating effects of online gambling.

The impact of gambling addiction is far reaching. It has devastating effects responsible for the loss of livelihoods, family homes and inheritances and for the destruction of families. Some gambling addictions are so fierce and the consequences so great that for some the burden is too heavy and results in the tragic loss of life. The Nick Xenophon Team's resolve on tackling predatory gambling is unwavering. We are committed to Australian communities. As long as gambling companies continue to prey on Australians, we will continue to push for much-needed sensible gambling reform.

There is no doubt that the Interactive Gambling Amendment Bill 2016 is a step in the right direction, and I commend the government for these measures. For too long the Interactive Gambling Act has been weak when it came to dealing with overseas online gambling organisations providing services within Australia. These organisations operated freely within our borders and caused immeasurable harm to Australian citizens. However, I remain concerned as to how the government will be able to enforce penalties against these companies, who may continue to disregard the measures in this bill and which operate in overseas jurisdictions.

The Nick Xenophon Team wants to see a requirement on internet service providers to block access to websites operated by those who continue to operate within Australian borders without permission to do so. During the committee stage of this debate, Senator Xenophon will be moving such an amendment to prevent access to illegal offshore operators. We believe this bill must go further to protect vulnerable Australian families from predatory gambling organisations. Senator Xenophon and I will be moving amendments to do just that.

Specifically, I will move an amendment during the committee stage that restricts the government's proposed meaning of 'electronic equipment'. The Nick Xenophon Team is very concerned about the loophole in the legislation that, if allowed to remain as currently drafted, would allow in-play betting from venue-provided smart devices in retail place betting venues, pubs and clubs. Section 8BA of the proposed bill provides for venues to loan customers electronic equipment for gambling use. The Nick Xenophon Team is deeply concerned that this bill appears to allow for place-based electronic betting through the introduction or expansion of electronic devices such as tablets and smartphones which provide for in-play betting, and circumvent the need to deal with a person or use a fixed betting terminal.

The definition of 'electronic equipment' referred to in the bill includes 'an electronic apparatus' or 'electronic device'. The bill's explanatory memorandum provides no guidance or explanation as to what these terms mean. This definition currently includes venue kiosks but is not restricted to such services. During the Senate inquiry into the bill, submitters raised concerns that these terms allow for the expansion of the use of electronic devices, including tablets and smartphones with an in-play betting function, within licensed betting venues.

In response to our question on notice regarding concerns about continued availability of in-play betting, the department responded:

The 'place-based betting service' exemption in proposed Section 8BA is intended to permit betting services, including potentially in-play betting services, to be provided on electronic equipment (which may include easy betting terminals and/or tablets) made available to customers in places such as TABs, casinos and clubs.

The department admitted, when I questioned them, that they had not done any modelling on whether this provision would lead to an uptake in betting services in venues due to increased availability of these electronic devices. The Nick Xenophon Team is concerned that this provision will expand the opportunities for in-play betting without addressing any of the concerns highlighted in the inquiry that this may increase opportunities for gambling and create faster, more instantaneous betting options.

If the government's aim is to reduce in-play betting, I fail to see how this bill helps. In-play betting is only supposed to be performed in person or over the phone. These measures will allow gambling operators to potentially expand their operations within licensed venues. This loophole goes against the intention of this bill.

I will be moving an amendment that narrows the definition and makes it clear that 'electronic equipment' will instead be defined as an 'electronic betting terminal' which is installed on a permanent or fixed basis at a place where gambling services are provided under supervision. It will be unable to connect to the internet and will be available for use only by customers using cash or a card issued by the provider. This definition will limit in-play betting to electronic betting terminals to ensure that gambling operators do not seek to expand their operations by allowing people to place in-play bets using tablets or smartphones provided by the venue at the bar. These terminals are permanent installations located in a specific area set aside for gambling and are unable to connect to the internet. This is the sort of protective measure we need.

In my opinion, the bill as it is currently drafted will increase the opportunities for in-play betting without addressing the very serious concern that this could increase opportunities for gambling. In-play betting is especially dangerous, as it gives a person an immediate opportunity to win their money back, which also heightens the potential for bigger losses. These are spur-of-the-moment decisions people make when they are swayed by emotions and possibly under the influence of alcohol.

If the government are going to introduce legislation on gambling reform, they must also consider the issue of harm minimisation. I fear that the current harm minimisation tactics used within bars and gambling venues are inadequate. During the Senate inquiry into this bill, I questioned the department as to whether they thought the current harm minimisation strategies were working. Their response was that harm minimisation was a matter for the states. But harm minimisation and problem gambling affects all Australians, and I want to see the federal government take more responsibility for this area and work more closely with the states to improve harm minimisation.

Given that this bill will see an increase in betting devices within licensed venues, it cannot be argued that the expansion of the gambling market would not result in harm. The Nick Xenophon Team will continue to hold the government to account and keep the pressure on to ensure that harm minimisation strategies are considered and implemented as we continue the fight against predatory gambling. Thank you.

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on this issue which, no doubt, is of increasing community concern around Australia. Gambling is an industry that is growing rapidly in this country. We have seen growth in the number of local companies that are involved. We have seen international outfits come onto the scene that are active in this area. A number of speakers have talked about the offshore gambling companies as well, which is obviously a concern for legislators. With the offshore companies, it is very hard to track how much money local Australians are gambling through those companies, and then there are the associated parts of that in terms of how much tax those companies are paying if they are taking the money offshore. There is also the issue, for those offshore companies, of harm minimisation. Obviously, any regulation that we bring in from an Australian point of view does not apply to those offshore companies. That is a concern from a level playing field point of view.

In terms of the legislation that is before us, it goes some way towards tightening the restrictions around these organisations. Obviously, with the proliferation of these companies we have also seen an increase in promotion and advertising from betting companies. I think that what has come with that is increasing community concern around that advertising. I know that Senator O'Neill has foreshadowed that Labor will be moving an amendment, and that amendment says:

The Senate calls on the government to work with the broadcasting industry and national sporting organisations on a transition plan to phase out the promotion of betting odds and commercials relating to betting or gambling before and during live sporting broadcasts, with a view to their prohibition.

I think that is something that would be welcomed by the community.

I am sure many people across Australia feel this when they sit down to watch their favourite team play or their favourite sport on TV, particularly with young children. You get concerned about the focus on live gambling and the ability or the encouragement or giving people the option to gamble on sporting matches. I know myself, as someone who has been a long-term season ticket holder of the Broncos, that, when I first started going to games as a season ticket holder, which would be about 10 years ago now, you did not see or were not encouraged to partake in gambling. But now and increasingly you see the sponsors on the jerseys and you see the sponsors on the ground, and indeed the opportunity to gamble within the sporting stadium is increasingly being promoted. When you see the mix of people who attend those football matches and understand the mix that would be watching at home on TV as well, you understand that traditionally, from an Australian point of view, partaking of or viewing sporting activities has increasingly been a family affair, so I think that, when we look at the potential damage that gambling can cause, we always need to look at it from that point of view.

The other thing I have noticed—and through the committee process I have had the opportunity to ask questions of the companies involved in these outfits—is that increasingly people who gamble are doing it through the apps on their phone or online. A good example of that was on Boxing Day. I went to my local club with some friends to watch the Boxing Day test. We were sitting at the TAB inside the RSL club, and there were a lot of people gambling, but not many people were getting up and using the terminal at the club. Increasingly, people are using their phone to gamble and not using the machines.

When it comes to looking at harm minimisation and what that means, if I am sitting there at a club and just gambling on my phone, there is no way that anyone inside that club is actually going to know what I am doing. Obviously, you could have a number of mobile phone apps on your phone and use any one of those to gamble. I think that, when you look at the proliferation of the companies involved and the fact that you can open an account with any of them, we need to constantly look at ensuring that we have the best practice possible to ensure that the harm minimisation policies are effective in this regard.

When we had the opportunity to question some of the companies recently, they attempted to put the argument that the focus for that effort should go on the financial institutions, so they are the ones who should bear the responsibility for identifying problem gamblers and be the ones to report that or potentially put a freeze on that person's account. I do not think it is good enough on the part of the companies to effectively pass the buck to the financial institutions. There obviously needs to be a lot more pressure put on those companies as this issue continues to develop and the community and therefore governments and parliaments have to respond to that challenge.

In terms of the proposed Labor amendment, I think it is appropriate for us to signal that this is something that we would pursue in government as well. We are really sending a message to the industry—and that is the broader industry, those gambling companies but also those people who benefit in a financial sense from the advertising—so that they know that Labor are determined to act in this regard, and we will continue to pursue that both in opposition and potentially in government as well.

Just further to my point about the offshore operators, who obviously do not currently pay tax in Australia: in the 2015 review of the impact of illegal offshore wagering, stakeholders highlighted that the current mechanisms for enforcement within the existing framework were insufficient and that they were no longer competing on a level playing field. Again, through the committee process, this has been raised by a number of the companies. Despite the large number of complaints that have been raised since the Interactive Gambling Act was established in 2001, there have not been any prosecutions, so I think that, with any changes to the Interactive Gambling Act, we need to look at the enforcement as well to ensure that we are doing our utmost to hold those companies to account.

But at the heart of this bill is the creation of a legal framework that is suitable for the industry and, importantly, empowers the Australian Communications and Media Authority with enforcement powers and the relevant authority under the act by ensuring that the Australian Communications and Media Authority becomes an efficient regulator with powers to issue informal warnings, infringement notices, civil penalties and injunctions. That aspect of the bill is certainly welcomed by Labor and, I think, as we have seen through the evidence process in the committees, is much needed. In particular, I welcome the creation of an offence and a civil penalty for a person who provides a regulated interactive gambling service to a person in Australia who does not possess a relevant licence from the state or territory government. This is inherently simple in its intent. There is now a clear framework for ACMA to investigate and take action against unlicensed services.

Another tool for ACMA's enforcement is the use of a civil penalty regime to encourage and support improved compliance with the Interactive Gambling Act. This will ensure that ACMA will be able to properly investigate and respond to breaches of the new regulatory regime. Frequently, under the current framework, that was unable to occur, due to other agencies not regarding these breaches as a priority and acting on them. This includes provisions for ACMA to refer complaints to the Australian Federal Police if they believe it is warranted. We also welcome the amendments to notify international regulators about their licensees who have been found to have broken provisions of the IGA. Previously, the offshore locations of a number of companies has made it very difficult to enforce current provisions of the Interactive Gambling Act. However, providing ACMA with relevant powers to help build those relationships with foreign regulators is a good start and no doubt will provide a framework for ACMA to enforce these new provisions. Certainly, from the evidence that we had from the department they are determined to work with international bodies to ensure that they make progress in this respect to ensure that there is more stringent accountability on an international level to those offshore gambling companies from an Australian point of view.

In terms of the proliferation of gambling, it is something that is of concern to me. It is something I intend to continue to keep a close eye on. I have enjoyed the role I have played in the committee in the short time I have been on it. I think that it is obviously something that is a constant feature of parliament, whether it be looking at pokies or looking at interactive gambling. I think it is something that is moving very fast, particularly with the availability online these days and moving into an international phase. Therefore, it is something that governments will continue to deal with. I am pleased to support the Interactive Gambling Act and I am pleased to advocate for the amendment that Senator O'Neill moved. It is an issue that I will continue to deal with as a senator.

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Interactive Gambling Amendment Bill 2016. This is a small step toward the goal of getting rid of the corrosive, corrupting influence of gambling in sport—a very small step. It clarifies the fact that wagering websites, services and products are illegal. It goes on to put some restrictions around in-play betting. It also strengthens the power of ACMA.

So it does some positive things, but there is also a huge catch. The government has decided through this legislation to include a special carve out for its big gambling mates who donate so handsomely to both of the major parties during election campaigns. The special exemption they have created would effectively allow online in-play sports betting from a tablet on the counter of every pub and club in Australia. Live in-play betting is hugely problematic. It is also known as in-the-run betting. It is an activity that makes gambling much more seductive. It is more likely for people involved in watching a game of footy to continue to bet, to double up, to chase their losses and ultimately to lose more than they would have otherwise lost. Because of this exemption there is going to be a massive expansion of in-play betting at a moment when the government is rightly saying, at least quietly, that we should be outlawing similar services provided online.

Why restrict in-play betting to services provided online and at the same time give this exemption that allows basically every pub and club in Australia to continue to do it? One has to ask oneself: why has the government decided to go down that path? The Tatts Group, whose subsidiary UBET is going to exploit this loophole, donated $139,000 to the two old parties, Labor and Liberal, in the last three years. So one has to ask oneself whether this is a loophole created by the government for its big gambling mates. We know, whether or not that is true, the perception that that might be true should be enough to give the government pause for thought. What we have is a problem with policy in this country being made on the back of big donations that come from big money interests. We Greens are going to be supporting amendments that close this outrageous little sweetheart deal for the Tatts Group and the big gambling mates of the old parties.

Despite the loophole, on balance I think the bill does deserve support. It does implement recommendations 18 and 19 of last year's O'Farrell Review of Illegal Offshore Wagering. The former New South Wales Premier's report made it crystal clear that online games and wagering are the fastest growing segments of the global gambling market. They are exploding in terms of market share. Products are being marketed largely to young men. They are causing a range of harms. We know and speak a lot about the harms associated with poker machines. We know and speak a lot about the harms associated with poker machines, and we are now learning in more detail about the harms that excessive gambling online causes to individuals, families and communities. Often these are young men who are isolated or living in regional communities, and they are losing big.

The Interactive Gambling Act is the main source of prohibition regulation that will attach to online gambling. We do acknowledge that it is a very difficult regulatory environment. This is a tough environment because you have a lot of this activity being conducted offshore. Whilst this act makes it illegal to offer online gambling products from offshore locations, we know that that prohibition is very difficult to enforce, so we are doing a balancing act between the prohibition and being able to enforce it. It is in everyone's interest to bring those offshore operators here onshore and to make sure that they are captured by the Australian regulatory environment. That is the balancing act.

Of course, the gambling lobby has a very powerful argument against what it calls over-regulation. It says the regulations are too restrictive and there is no incentive for operators to come here onshore. Surprise, surprise: big business does not like regulation that might restrict its profits. Ultimately, this is about finding the best way to reduce the huge harm that these predatory pushers of online gambling products do cause our communities. We just do not have the balance right at the moment. We have not got the balance right. You just need to sit down and watch a major sporting event with young kids to see what it is like. Every time you sit down with a kid to watch the footy, the cricket or the tennis, they are being bombard with odds, websites and famous faces pushing online gambling down their throats. The marketing of these products, as Senator Chisholm said previously, is relentless. It is having a significant impact on young kids and creating the problem gamblers of tomorrow.

When I sat down with my kids to watch the cricket over the summer, as I occasionally do, I was dumbstruck by one freeze frame. There was a fielder sliding along the grass towards the boundary rope. The rope was clad with the URL of a major online gambling website. The fence behind the rope also displayed the same website. And then running across the bottom of the screen was a paid banner ad for—yes, you guess it—the same online gambling website. It has become absolutely relentless. This stuff is everywhere. You cannot escape it. There is an irony here when you see some young sportsman having to confess to having gambled illegally and consider that they are bathed in it. They are surrounded by it. They are wearing this stuff on their jumpers. The sponsors are everywhere. The ground is covered in it. TV is shoving this stuff down people's throats. Is it any wonder that some people make bad decisions? It is damaging the brand and integrity of many of the sporting codes that we love. It is so insidious now. Just listen to young kids talk about their favourite sporting code. They might talk about a game of AFL footy. In the old days they would be swapping footy cards. Now it is a discussion about what are the odds of Cyril Rioli kicking the next goal, or of David Warner making a tonne in the cricket. Their experience of the game is no longer an experience shaped around the game itself; it is an experience where gambling is enmeshed in the sport. For young people, the line between gambling and sport is not a clear one. They have become one and the same. These are very clever marketing tactics by the gambling industry. I am really concerned about what this will do to those young children in the future. Are we creating another generation of problem gamblers?

So, of course we welcome any effort to try to curb the pernicious influence of online betting and gambling, but that does not mean the activity should be illegal. People should be able to gamble if they want to, but we need some restrictions around what is appropriate, and we absolutely need to ensure that there are restrictions around the way this stuff is marketed and promoted. It is why we are going to vote in favour of some of the amendments on the table that will close the loophole which I talked about earlier. I would like to think that we could also vote to support a bill like my Broadcasting Services Amendment (Advertising for Sports Betting) Bill 2013. What that bill would do is ban radio and TV licence holders from broadcasting any ads or information about sports betting or odds. If people want to gamble that is their right, but just don't shove it down our throats. Let a young child watch a sporting broadcast, without having to be bombarded with betting advertising. I do hope that there will be an appetite to return to that bill at some stage in the near future.

I do, however, know that we will be facing an uphill battle if we are to get some restriction on sports advertising. The influence of the gambling lobby on the old parties, as I said, does not just extend to donations. There is now a revolving door between the gambling industry and political office. I want to say a few words here about the role that the Labor Party has played in ensuring that the gambling industry has the contacts and the networks it needs to be able to scuttle any legislation when it comes to restrictions on gambling. Senator Conroy could not wait to leave the Senate to join Responsible Wagering Australia. You would think that that was an organisation whose focus was on ensuring that people wager responsibly—no, how wrong you are. That Orwellian sounding title is the name of an organisation that represents the big gambling industry. It is not just Senator Conroy; it seems to be that the Right of the Labor Party has this revolving door between itself and the gambling industry. We saw this with former Senator Mark Arbib. He could not wait to leave the Senate so that he could become part of the Packer gambling empire. Indeed, the former National Secretary of the Labor Party Karl Bitar is another graduate of the Labor Right moving into the gambling industry. They are hired guns who are used by the industry because they have the contacts and networks necessary to be able to scuttle reform. They are working for an industry that preys on some of the most vulnerable people in the country. No wonder people have had a gutful of politics. When they see people in senior positions leave this place and, within the blink of an eye, stand up and start spruiking for an industry that they once had responsibility for regulating, it does more than just raise a few eyebrows. It means that people whose faith in their democratic institutions is already at an all-time low say, 'What is the point?' The time is long overdue for us to put a code of conduct in place that prevents that activity from taking place into the future.

Let me go to some of the detail of what this bill does. As I said earlier, it clarifies that offshore wagering websites, services and products are made illegal. It clarifies that Australian operators can no longer operate click-to-call services like the ones they currently operate, which allow betters to place in-play bets over their mobile phones and tablets, without even needing to speak to an operator. These are important developments. It also strengthens the power of the Australian Communications and Media Authority and creates a civil penalty regime which targets, in particular, operators of offshore wagering websites and services. However, the government has failed in this bill to commit to one of the essential recommendations of the O'Farrell report, and that is that, until a national framework is established and operating, consideration of additional in-play betting products should be deferred and legislative steps taken to respect the original intent of the Interactive Gambling Act. In this bill the government have ignored that recommendation. Instead of considering additional in-play betting products only at the point at which legislative steps have been taken, they have decided to carve out in-play betting for what are euphemistically called 'place-based betting services', defined in clause 8B(a) as involving electronic equipment.

In other words, what the bill does is exempts the practice already engaged in by some clubs and pubs of offering tethered online electronic betting terminals. So you can do in-play betting—when the whole point of this is to restrict it—providing that you are in a pub or club and you are using one of their tethered online electronic betting terminals.

What this exemption would do is dramatically expand the scope of in-play betting. That is in direct contradiction to the O'Farrell recommendation. I will get to it in a moment, as to how that would happen. The Uniting Church, Responsible Wagering Australia and other Australian providers agree that this is a sweetheart deal which hands over, to operators like the Tatts Group, access to physical premises like pubs and clubs.

As I said earlier, former senator Stephen Conroy has become a spruiker for the gambling industry. Not even his factional clout and political connections could compete with the hundreds of thousands of dollars that are flowing into the ALP coffers from the gambling industry. On this occasion, it seemed that they were at odds—and I use that pun intentionally.

Experts warn that this sweetheart exemption could lead to pubs and clubs offering in-play sports betting via tethered tablets, which are more attractive than the large cumbersome machines that are in use.

Let us look at what Tatts Group's UBET said recently. They intend to offer a digital in-play sports betting solution that will allow punters to bet through a customised app on a tablet service. In other words, they are getting ready for in-play betting to occur through their tablets, and they are hoping that one day they will have a monopoly on in-play betting, through their customised app on their tablet devices.

There are some amendments to this legislation which would help close this little sweetheart loophole, and I am talking specifically about Senator Xenophon's amendments. We the Greens will be supporting those amendments. The amendments will tighten up the definition of 'placed-based betting service' to more accurately reflect the reality of current practice and prevent the expansion of in-play sports betting that I have just described. For those reasons, we will support them. They would also strengthen the principal act by introducing an interactive gambling regulator and a national self-exclusion register. We also support those amendments. The amendments would also strengthen the act by banning wagering services from offering credit, or microbetting; by allowing gamblers to set personal betting limits; and by strengthening regulatory powers. We support that amendment too.

There is one aspect of the circulated amendments that we do not support. That is the provision that would require the minister to regulate to require internet service providers to block access to illegal overseas gambling websites. We do not think that is an effective solution, and so we will not support that specific amendment.

I conclude by saying this bill does go some small way in the direction that we need to go, and it is just insane that this glaring loophole has been left open for a particular segment of the industry. If we do not address this issue, we are looking at creating another generation of problem gamblers. This is an industry that has shown itself as wanting to prey on some of the most vulnerable people in our community, and it is governments that have been complicit with the industry every step of the way. Regulation of the industry is absolutely critical, not just in terms of in-play betting but also in terms of the promotion, advertising and sponsorship of gambling products. If we do not deal with this issue now, we risk repeating the mistakes that we made when it comes to poker machines. We risk making the same mistakes within the online betting environment, and that is a cost that is far too high for our society to bear.

David Leyonhjelm (NSW, Liberal Democratic Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I oppose the Interactive Gambling Amendment Bill 2016. It is paternalistic, nanny-state legislation based on the assumption that prohibition is an effective regulatory response to something of which the government disapproves. The intention of the bill it to make it impossible for Australians to bet on sporting matches while they are in play. There is already legislation that seeks to make this illegal, but it has some loopholes. This bill seeks to remove those loopholes.

Why does the government want to ban in-play gambling? Why should some forms of gambling be legal, even encouraged, while another form is prohibited? The justification we are given is that in-play gambling leads to match-fixing. There have been examples of that in the past. So there is an assumption that the only way to prevent such match-fixing is to ban in-play gambling. I am not discounting the fact that match-fixing or spot-fixing might sometimes be a problem. In recent years, we have seen examples of this in some sports, such as cricket and tennis, but this legislation is no solution. Banning live betting on the internet in this country will have no more impact on match-fixing than banning the production of pornography in Australia would have on the availability of porn. The internet just does not work that way. The only winners will be unregulated, untrustworthy offshore operations, and punters will have no protection if they get ripped off. And when those unregulated, untrustworthy offshore operations play host to punters engaged in match fixing or spot fixing, nobody in Australia will be able to follow the money trail. It will all be invisible.

The United Kingdom has taken a better approach. The UK's Gambling Commission is authorised to manage gambling licences and to monitor betting to ensure everything is run in a safe and efficient manner. They understand that banning betting will not stop dodgy practices. Instead, they concentrate on monitoring the integrity of sports betting and looking after the interests of punters. They can look for signs of match fixing, act on tip-offs and follow the money trail. If they find evidence of match fixing they can deal with the individuals at fault, including cancelling licences and launching prosecutions, while leaving all the innocent punters alone. So instead of collectively treating gamblers like naughty schoolchildren, they treat them individually as adults whose pastimes are a legitimate form of entertainment and whose interests are worth protecting. What a novel attitude.

Australia loves to ban things. This ban on live betting adds to the nanny state nonsense and it will not stop match fixing. It could also turn hundreds of Australians who have been betting online without harming anyone else into our latest class of criminals.

Also caught up in this bad legislation are hundreds of Australians who enjoy a flutter on online poker. Online poker is not a spectator sport. Nobody tries to fix a cricket match as part of an online poker game. There is no public interest in banning it as part of interactive gambling laws. I have an amendment to exempt online poker and blackjack from the bill. It is insane that they were ever caught up in it. But ultimately, I don't want the bill to pass. I believe individuals have a right to make decisions for themselves, no matter whether we would make the same decisions ourselves.

Finally, if the legislation passes, I would like to take this opportunity to give some advice to online poker players. Notwithstanding the risk of offshore hosts, screw the government: get yourself a VPN and an offshore account and carry on as you were. And I wish all of you the best of luck.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I support this bill, the Interactive Gambling Amendment Bill 2016, but I believe it ought to go much further because the issue of online gambling has become increasingly prevalent in Australia. It is impacting on many more people. We have seen an exponential increase in online gambling, in particular in sports betting. As my colleague Senator Kakoschke-Moore indicated, the 2015 O'Farrell review found that the number of active online wagering accounts grew from 200,000 to 800,000 between 2010 and 2014—that is for legal online accounts for legal sports betting agencies. That indicates to me that that there is a significant issue, and the bigger the boom in online gambling the bigger the bust for individuals who are caught up in it and who suffer from gambling addiction.

This bill will go some small way in dealing with the issues—it acknowledges the impact of in-play betting—as imperfect as it is, but there needs to be consideration of why this bill needs to go further. It needs to go further because it is not a case in Australia of enough is enough; it is a case of enough is much. We in this nation lose more in gambling per capita than any other nation in the world. It is a significant social problem, and it is being made worse by the biggest growth area—that is, sports betting.

In 2015, I was part of the launch of Financial Counselling Australia's report Duds, mugs and the A-list. That report looked at the impact of sports betting, particularly on young men around the country. It was published by an organisation that knows better than most what it means to be affected by gambling addiction, because Financial Counselling Australia represents financial counsellors who assist consumers in financial difficulty. They see, on the front line, at the coal face, the impact of gambling addiction. They have been seeing more and more people in recent years in relation to the effects of sports betting, and in-play betting was a significant driver in gambling addiction. In-play betting had a significant impact on young men chasing their losses, because they could gamble in play. It is a more addictive form of gambling. It is more pernicious and leads to greater problems.

That is why we need to support this bill, but I believe the way that this bill has been drafted by the government allows for a number of loopholes to allow some organisations to circumvent that. Reference was made by Senator Di Natale in respect of that. We must oppose that circumvention by strengthening the bill.

Financial Counselling Australia in its landmark report Duds, mugs and the A-list: the impact of uncontrolled sports betting said that urgent action is needed:

Betting on the pokies is relatively small fry in comparison – you can’t put $250,000 into slot machines in one sitting, but you can do that with sports betting with the click of a mouse. If this is the future of gambling, it is indeed frightening. Urgent action is needed.

As bad as things are with poker machines they can get much, much worse with online gambling. This is the new frontier for gambling expansion. We are already the worst in the world for per-capita gambling losses and, dare I say, gambling addiction per capita. This bill at least opens up the debate in relation to these issues.

I will address shortly, perhaps after the dinner break, a number of the measures in the bill. The bill needs to go further, but it is important that it be put into context about the seriousness of the problem we now fact in relation to this.

Sitting suspended from 18:30 to 19:30

The issue of online gambling is one of critical importance. More and more Australians are falling prey to gambling addiction because of online gambling and because of sports betting. There is nothing like the pernicious advertising of sports betting; it is in your face at sporting games and during sporting broadcasts. That is why it is important that we also reform the issue of online gambling advertising for sports betting advertising. It does seem incongruous, it does seem like a loophole and it does seem unacceptable that there is one exemption to the situation where, in the ordinary course of events, the current ACMA rules say you cannot have gambling advertising during a G-rated time. There is one exemption to that and that exemption relates to sports broadcasts.

If you are broadcasting a game, you can advertise gambling products during that game. I would have thought that is the one particular event watched by families and watched by young children that ought to be the subject of a ban not an exemption of a ban during G-rated times. It is very disturbing that eight-, 10- and 12-year-olds—according to the many parents I speak to with young children—tell their parents about the odds of a game. It is very concerning that gambling behaviour is normalised amongst children in that way. I do not want the kids of today to become the gambling addicts of tomorrow. This bill at least opens up a debate and at least tries to restrict the issue of in-play betting. As imperfect as this bill is, at least it means that we are actually beginning to grapple with this problem.

This is an issue that goes back many years. Back in 2001 I was a member of the Parliament of South Australian and I was here lobbying members of this chamber to have the interactive gambling bill passed by the Senate. It was touch and go. I remember seeing: the late Senator Brian Harradine; the One Nation senator, Senator Len Harris; the then communications minister, Senator Richard Alston; and the many others that I spoke to in the course of the week that I was in Canberra. I was doing my bit, along with supporting the Reverend Tim Costello, to ensure that the bill was passed. It was certainly an improvement on what we had before, which was not much at all.

But, whilst that bill was passed 16 years ago, it may as well have been passed 160 years ago, because so much has happened in the online gambling space since that time. This bill, at least, is an update of sorts, but I think it is interesting to reflect that back in December 2011 the Joint Select Committee on Gambling Reform during the period of the Gillard government prepared its second report on interactive and online gambling and gambling advertising. Back then, it was clear that overseas gambling websites were a real problem that needed to be addressed.

I referred in my additional comments to that report to one particular case of a constituent that had serious problems with Casino.com, a site hosted in Singapore but licensed in Gibraltar. It has an Australian flag in the background and lists of Australian winners and it takes bets in Australian currency. This individual, and of course I will do nothing to identify him—my colleague Senator Kakoschke-Moore worked on this particular case, advocating for him as a constituent—initially appeared to win thousands of dollars. He tried to withdraw it, but he could not withdraw it. He got free credit, $250, on condition that he play certain games, which he did not wish to play. Within about two months, he was up $90,000. He seemed to win the money very easily with the casino games he was playing, but then he started to lose. At one point he lost $50,000 in a day. He was given free gifts: an iPod; a laptop; an iPhone 4, back then; a free trip to anywhere in the world plus $5,000 spending money. He was a VIP customer. The website then made $90,000 of unauthorised transactions from his credit cards. He made official complaints to three banks which have now reversed the transaction, but his total still stood at $120,000.

This case illustrates that the potential for harm with overseas sites is great, and the regulatory framework in some of these countries is grossly inadequate. Try writing to the regulator in Gibraltar, and good luck to you. I have, and you are lucky to get a response in any form of timeliness. I think that it indicates that we ought to be able to tackle these overseas sites. That is why I will be moving an amendment in relation to that.

We have heard from a Canadian based company called Netsweeper, which says that you can block these sites. You can take action in respect of these sites. They say there is a way to do so. I will refer to that in the context of this amendment when I move it, but there are arguments that should be counted. There is an argument that an offshore, unlicensed, online gambling company can simply change their domain, the URL, to avoid blocking from Australia, and so accept Australian customers.

Netsweeper is one of many on the market that are dealing with these issues The Netsweeper policy server and technology crawls through the internet daily for online gambling keywords. If an unlicensed company attempts to change its URL to avoid blocking, then Netsweeper will simply crawl, locate and categorise the new URL and therefore block it. The argument given is one that I think Senator Leyonhjelm referred to when he actually advised people what to do, to use a VPN to avoid website blocking. What Netsweeper, and I believe others, would say is that the KYC documentation of online gambling firms states that any customer who attempts to make a deposit with an Australian credit card, e-wallet or bank wire service must be registered with an Australian IP address or the deposit will be voided. Furthermore, if a customer attempts to withdraw funds, then a copy of the player's passport and a utility bill must be provided. If this documentation does not correspond with the Australian IP, then the customer's account will be suspended and the funds will not be dispersed. The online gambling industry has numerous security measures in place to avoid fraud and bonus abuse, often focusing on ensuring country identity. So you can deal with that argument.

The other argument is that blocking gambling websites will inadvertently also block gambling websites that may be properly licensed in Australia or that may have no relationship to gambling at all. The websites of all gambling companies that are properly licenced in Australia would be added to a whitelist of allowed sites with a deployed Netsweeper filtering system—or, indeed, other filtering systems—and using artificial intelligence engines to ensure that non-gambling websites are not blocked, with a final human review element used if required. So we can attempt to do this. When you consider the level of harm caused by online gambling, particularly from these unlawful sites, it is worth giving it a go.

During the joint select committee inquiry back in 2011, evidence was given by the Australian Bankers Association. I remember asking questions of then CEO Steven Munchenberg, the outgoing head of the ABA, who essentially said, 'Yes, we can cooperate in relation to this in terms of the big banks to block those sites.' They were already blocking other sites for various purposes, such as terrorist related purposes. It can be done if there is political will to do so. Considering that hundreds of millions of dollars are being lost to these unlawful sites, that is something we should attempt to do with alacrity. We need to tackle that.

It is also worth referring to the issue of domestic online sports betting websites. Back in 2011 the University of Sydney Gambling Treatment Clinic—the GTC—gave evidence saying that only five per cent of their clients in the 2006-07 financial year were reporting problem gamblers with sports betting. Problem gamblers with sports betting represented 15 per cent to 20 per cent in 2010-11. That was five years ago. I suggest that figure is now much higher. There has been an exponential increase in the growth of sports betting. There are now greater opportunities to gamble—every mobile phone can be turned into a betting terminal—and there is now the ability to cause much more harm, much more quickly. That is why this bill is welcomed, but it needs to go much further.

It is also worth reflecting on the research of Associate Professor Samantha Thomas and Dr Charles Livingstone, who have done terrific work in relation to online betting. Associate Professor Thomas did work on this a number of years ago. She found that young men in particular felt ostracised and felt isolated from their peer group if they did not gamble, such was the pressure to be part of a gambling culture. That is something that is very concerning and it is something that can drive levels of gambling addiction. Associate Professor Thomas has also done work on the number of young children who can recognise a sports betting operator, and the figures are staggering. Something like half of the young children she spoke to could recognise at least one sports betting agency—or an even greater amount. I do not have the figures in front of me, but it is a very significant number of young people who recognise it. We are talking about children.

Associate Professor Thomas has also made the point that schemes like Mad Bookie offer sponsorship to community sports clubs, which I think is quite pernicious. They offer clubs cashback if members sign up and bet on their website, and clubs are promised a 25 per cent cash rebate from members' losses each month. That raises very serious ethical issues—that is, to draw in a local club, a community club, into these sorts of schemes and arrangements. She says that schemes like Mad Bookie promote risk taking because there is perceived reward, even with gambling losses. Associate Professor Thomas said that the concern is that we will have a generation of kids who will are naturally transitioning to betting because it is in that club environment that kids are exposed to. Associate Professor Thomas said, 'Given our research, and considering how much kids are absorbing, having gambling sponsorship at a community sports club would not be consistent with a health promotion environment for kids.' She says that sports betting is being normalised for young children. She says: 'Kids tell us that they see gambling ads everywhere; they cannot escape them. You can't watch a game of footy or go to a sporting event without seeing them. Signage can appear to be quite harmless, but when you talk to kids, it is those kinds of things they see regularly and it becomes a natural part of their environment.' That is something that is very disturbing.

In fact, it was a 2016 study co-authored by Associate Professor Thomas that found that 75 per cent of children aged eight to 16 years believed wagering was a normal or common part of sport, and could name at least one gambling brand. One-quarter of the children could recall four or more betting brands, and three in four children could recall at least one. Many could quote specific promotional offers and could talk in terms of cashback or refund promotions and bonus bets. This was in an article in QWeekend not so long ago.

I just would reflect on another issue based on a discussion that I had with Senator Hanson and her colleagues earlier this evening. They indicated that they will be seeking to move another amendment on those online betting services that offer you the chance to bet on the outcome of those megalotteries overseas. Lottoland.com is a prime example of that, but there are others. This is an important issue, and that sort of betting ought to be prohibited. I understand that Senator Hanson and her colleagues are looking at moving an amendment in relation to that. I absolutely commend her for doing so, if that is what she will be doing in expressing those concerns. I share those concerns. It is absolutely important that we grapple with this because this bill should be the beginning of a series of legislative measures to deal with the impact of sports betting and the impact it is having on young people in particular around the country. I know from the work I have done with my colleague Senator Kakoschke-Moore that our current regulatory frameworks are pathetic. Our current regulatory frameworks are woefully inadequate.

The Northern Territory regulator, in dealing with online betting, have let down so many people. They do not appear to be a regulator with any degree of rigour. They are not a regulator that can be respected. They are a regulator that have ignored serious issues in terms of problem gambling behaviour and breaches of codes, and have been completely or largely ineffective. That is why a national response, in the absence of a strong state or territory based response, is important. That is why I see this bill as a first step to many other steps that must be taken.

Too many young people and too many members of the community are being bitten by the gambling bug because of online gambling. Too many young men in particular are missing out on a deposit for a first home, buying their first car or planning that overseas trip because they have blown it on online gambling. It causes huge scars for them emotionally, as well as the financial scars it causes. That is why this legislation should be seen as the beginning of the debate and not the end of the debate for the reforms that we so sorely need in terms of online gambling in this country.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I rise to speak about the Interactive Gambling Amendment Bill 2016. To be frank, I am feeling tentative and uncertain. I am in two minds: is this yet another nanny state intrusion to control people's lives or is technology moving far more quickly than society's ability to adapt? Coming to the first question of whether is this yet another nanny state intrusion to control people's lives: at Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party, we value individual freedom. Individual freedom is essential for responsibility, as our party leader has said for 20 years in politics. Individual freedom is very important for long-term personal security. Quite frankly, we could say—which is pervasive now; the ads are pervasive during sports broadcasts—why not let sports rip and why not let the gambling industry drag itself into destruction so that people could see the damage it is doing to our communities? But would that be fair?

On the other hand, the argument could be that the technology is moving much quicker than our society's ability to adapt. Sure, we could let people go through a lot of pain and eventually realise that gambling is an ill that needs to be treated very, very seriously and people would take responsibility for their own lives. But how many people would be able to come through that in a reasonable amount of time without continuing suicides? People rack up big losses. It is just a small number of people who rack up huge losses because of the compulsion and the addiction, but they have very big consequences on families.

There is plenty of gambling right now. It does not matter where one goes, one can see gambling available. It is easy. We can go to the trots, we can go to the horses, we could get the pokies, we can gamble with our mates or we can gamble on the dogs. We can gamble on any number of things, so there is plenty of gambling. Why do we need internet gambling? Do we need internet gambling? Another thing to consider is that internet gambling is essentially dirty profits going overseas. Companies that are taking money overseas are set up in the Northern Territory, with very little regulation. There is very little in the way of impediments to control them, to oversee the damage that they are doing and to the rein that in. There are very serious questions.

I would like to refer to a report of August 2015 from Financial Counselling Australia, which is entitled Duds, mugs and the A-list. Why do I refer to a Financial Counselling Australia report? Financial counsellors assist consumers in financial difficulty; they know about financial difficulty and people in financial difficulty. They provide information, support and advocacy to help consumers deal with their immediate financial situation and minimise the risk of future financial problems. The majority of financial counsellors work in community organisations, although some are employed by government. Their services are free, confidential and independent. So financial counsellors have extensive knowledge in a range of areas: consumer credit law, debt enforcement practices, the budgetary regime, industry hardship policies and government concession frameworks.

Around Australia, there are a number of financial counsellors who specialise in gambling financial counselling and helping people repair their lives after the damage. Financial counsellors are assisting an increasing number of clients, we are told, who have experienced staggering sports betting losses. People are losing their own money as well as money provided as credit by the sports betting companies. As a result, clients are losing their savings, homes, redundancies and superannuation payments, and they are losing their families. There is anecdotal evidence, according to Financial Counselling Australia, that some so-called accidental deaths—such as single vehicle accidents—may in fact be people who are escaping gambling debts.

Looking at some insights into the industry, sports betting companies actively encourage customers to bet using credit provided by the gambling companies. They are foreign companies who may not be able to, or may not want to, pay off on winnings. It seems amounts ranging from $200 to many tens of thousands of dollars are loaned. In some cases, the lure is initial free bets. They are free bets to get people hooked. It familiarises consumers with the game before inducing them to take further credit. These so-called free bets can be provided unethically and in a misleading fashion.

Whether a particular person is given credit or not, or has an existing credit limit increased, is based on an assessment of whether the company is likely to be repaid rather than whether the customer would experience undue hardship in making repayments. For example, some clients, to continue gambling, will take the money from household living expenses. The sports betting company knows that they will always come good with the money. Debt collection in the sports betting industry is swift and brutal. Customers can lose assets, such as the family home, in very short spaces of time. Debt collection charges and the fees for a bankruptcy trustee can significantly increase the amount owed.

According to Financial Counselling Australia:

We were also told by a former employee that sports betting companies swap customer account data, contrary to privacy legislation. When a gambler 'goes cold' and stops betting with one company, the company swaps lists with another company, which then entices the person to resume gambling. The recipient can receive a fully functioning account populated with their private financial data, plus some 'free money'—

It sounds like a Greens exercise here! They receive free money or credit to welcome them into the fold. Then we look at the pain this causes. Here are some cases studies; people losing huge amounts that they cannot afford.

Peter, for example, a 40-something male, received a redundancy payment of approximately $60,000. Sitting at home, with no risk, he became depressed. With no work, he became depressed. There was also a death in the family. Now, at that time Peter started gambling online with two different online sports betting companies, and lost his entire redundancy payout within just two months—two months! He also took out payday loans and pawned most of the household goods at this time. When he came to see a financial counsellor, his family had no money for food or to pay bills. He was not eligible for Newstart allowance as the retrenchment payout is counted as income. Peter appeared depressed and deeply affected. His family had no income and their savings were long gone. He has a wife and child.

Another financial counsellor saw Alex, who lost $90,000 in one week on sports betting. Alex had amassed a staggering $300,000 in debt due to sports betting, primarily over the past three years. And things have not changed in the last 1½ years. Richard opened an online betting account with a sports betting company at the start of the AFL season. As part of this new account he received inducements of $100 to $500 in free bets. Similar inducements were offered at other points in the AFL season. What we are seeing here are individuals, vulnerable—sometimes depressed, but highly vulnerable—and maybe suffering an addiction to gambling, preyed upon by company after company, many of them from overseas.

Richard, in this case, had some mental health difficulties and his parents helped him to sell his home and move back in with them so that they could assist him. He finally sold his house and the proceeds of the sale were sitting in his bank account. In the process of setting up the bank account, he linked the sports betting account to that bank account. He initially played with the 'free' money and learned how to play. Isn't that wonderful? Make it easy for them to learn how to play! A month later he bet $20,000 on a drawn game and lost close to $10,000. Two weeks on, he transferred $50,000 from his linked bank account to his sports betting account and wagered the whole amount on three games of that round. He won $35,000. Richard then placed the entire $85,000 in his sports betting account on the following week's games and lost it all. The following week he transferred the remaining $90,000, and that he lost quickly.

Each time it took just one click—one click!—to transfer funds from his bank account to his sports betting account. Just one click. Richard ended up losing the entire proceeds of his house sale in a few weeks, and his future changed course. In his mid 30s he had lost everything. His parents told how they cried for their son.

It is not just junior people. Max was a senior employee in a large finance company. You would think that if anyone could understand it would be Max. He was spending $2,000 per bet on weekend sporting games through online sports betting. He was sent incentives to entice him to gamble more, and his bets went up to $5,000 per bet. And this man was the employee of a large finance company. This pattern continued for a long time. One weekend, Max's gambling became erratic, and he bet $250,000—a quarter of a million dollars—on a single game and lost. He placed a second quarter-of-a-million-dollar bet that same weekend, losing the entire half a million dollars. In total, he had lost $670,000 to the sports betting company. The sports betting company then froze his account.

On the Monday morning Max told company management about his losses and that he had embezzled the money from them. He no longer had assets, he has filed for bankruptcy and is now in prison. The financial counsellor discovered that he had a further $200,000 of unsecured debt on credit cards, also spent on funding his sports betting.

Max reflects on how easy it was to gamble this large amount. There were no safeguards when his behaviour became erratic. He was amazed at the ease with which he could increase his bets without any questioning or intervention. We understand, though, that betting companies use complex algorithms to detect gambling patterns in real time. They would have picked up Max's atypical bets, but chose to accept them from someone vulnerable.

Some people are borrowing from payday lenders to fund their sports betting debts. Marco, for example, came to the financial counsellor with significant online payday lending debts due to funding his own online gambling. He had lost the money on online sports betting and indicated his surprise at the ease at which he was both able to gamble and to fund his gambling addiction through online payday lenders. He did not need to leave the house to set up any of this; he could do it from the comfort of his own house. The financial counsellor negotiated settlements with the payday lenders based on legislated consumer protections. But the man was already in trouble.

Jack is on a disability support pension. Jack and his mother had joint title on the home. Jack received a phone call from a sports-betting company representative, who offered three $1,000 free bets so that he could 'get a feel for the service'. He then got an email saying, 'I have set up your account. I have put the free bets in.' Another phone call informed him, 'Are you aware that our company offers credit and could put some dollars into your account?' He initially declined the offer of credit, but about two weeks later he discovered $10,000 in credit in his account. He used it.

One month later, two unsolicited credit limit increases were applied, upping his first limit to $30,000 and then to $40,000. Eight days after that, the limit on his betting company account was increased to $60,000 and later to $80,000. And Jack used the money and lost it. The betting company and its legal representatives then dodged a creditors' petition to bankrupt Jack. They also issued a warrant of possession for the house and demanded that he vacate the property within 14 days. The financial counsellor said that this was a frightening time for Jack and his mother. He said, 'They called me often and asked, "What do we do now?"'

The trustee fees and bankruptcy came to $50,000 and the case was resolved out of court. The financial counsellor helped them stay in their house but their losses were still substantial.

What about suicide and sports betting debts? Tim had huge debts from sports betting. He had embezzled funds from his employer to fund his addiction. At one point he attempted suicide. After Tim came out of hospital he found emails in his inbox inviting him to come to a big boxing match. He went to a financial counsellor, seeking assistance to deal with his debts. An employee of the sports betting company described his conversation with the court bailiff about the success of serving court orders on an indebted gambler.

Another example is Pete, a young adult living at home. He used his parents credit card one weekend and lost a few thousand dollars through online sports betting. He knew his parents would find out when they checked their account. He committed suicide, leaving an explanatory note apologising and explaining his shame. The parents met with a financial counsellor to work out how they could repay the credit card debt.

A gambling counsellor who was interviewed said that her agency asked every new gambling client two questions as part of the intake process: 'Have you ever thought of suicide?' Most say, 'Yes.' And, 'Have you ever actually attempted it?' One in 10—10 per cent—say, 'Yes'. A gambling counsellor said: 'The gamblers see no way out. One client told me, "I just wanted to drive straight off that bridge so I wouldn't have to face up to what I've done."' Most do not do it because things do get better with help, and families do not know because of the shame.

I cannot finish without saying something about another big gambling exercise. A few weeks ago, I was listening to people across south-west Queensland and I got wind of a town by the name Dirranbandi while I was in Balonne Shire Council offices in the town of St George near Dirranbandi. They told me that there are 100 vacant houses in Dirranbandi, a once thriving community. I said, 'How many houses are in Dirranbandi?' They said, 'We estimate around 300.' One-third of the houses are vacant, and the school enrolments have dropped by 50 per cent in just five years. The reason? As a parliament, we are gambling with taxpayer funds on the Murray-Darling Basin water buyback, destroying southern Queensland and northern New South Wales. People down the road at Goondiwindi, who have operations in Queensland and in New South Wales, told me the devastation in Dirranbandi is not as bad as the devastation in Collarenebri. Collarenebri and two other towns—give me a minute to think of the names—have also been devastated by this taxpayer funded federal government initiative.

We are also gambling with the sovereignty and the governance of this country. This country's Constitution depends on competitive federalism, and there is a very, very good reason for that. Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen highlighted this when he abandoned and abolished estate duties—death duties. And what happened? Because of that, and his pro-business stance, his balancing of the budget and his support for infrastructure, people from the south flocked to the Gold Coast and now we see the miracle that is the Gold Coast. When Queensland took funding from investors from the south and retirees from the south, southern governments also abolished death duties. That is why we must restore competitive federalism.

We also see the federal government gambling with innovation, as they say. What a lovely word—a catchphrase; a buzzword. I was asking Senator Sinodinos a couple of weeks ago in Senate estimates about the hundreds of millions of dollars being flung around in one program after another. The really sad thing is that the highly paid federal public servants actually believe it is going to work. History shows—cursory examples are an iPhone, a computer or a car—that all significant inventions and improvements come from someone who has skin in the game, someone who depends on his idea working. We know that for every one invention that works there are sometimes thousands of inventors who have not succeeded but who have plucked up the courage to do something. We also know that of the one inventor who succeeds, sometimes, he or she might go through hundreds of iterations before they succeed. This is hardly a gamble and yet our federal government is not leading by example. It is gambling; it is gambling with taxpayer funds.

I hope I have conveyed to you the misery that is being caused by unregulated gambling. I hope I have conveyed that I am torn, in some ways, because— (Time expired)

Cory Bernardi (SA, Australian Conservatives) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not mind admitting that I was not intending to speak on this bill until I was in the position a little bit earlier that you are in now when a number of the contributions made by other senators discussed the impact of problem gambling. It caused me to have another look at the Interactive Gambling Amendment Bill 2016. No matter how you might like to dress it up, this bill is not about dealing with problem gambling, save for perhaps one clause in relation to the call-to-bet or click-to-call procedures.

This is really more about tax revenue for the government and they are dressing it up as purporting to solve a problem gambling issue because there are unregulated gambling operations that are taking bets from Australians. They can do it very easily, and they essentially pay no licence fees, turnover taxes or anything else that is attached to it. I am not standing in the way of that, but what I have listened to is people coming out with sob-story after sob-story about individuals who have been impacted by gambling. I will have a bet with anyone in this place that no-one is closer to the issue of problem gambling destroying individuals' lives than me, not because I have a problem with gambling but because someone very close to me does. I have seen millions of dollars disappear. I have seen families get destroyed. I have seen businesses get destroyed. I have seen people at the pits of despair as a result of gambling. And yet I do not blame the gambling operators; I blame the individuals for making those determinations themselves.

Having said that, there are things we can do, and this is where I am going to depart from the bill a little bit. There are things we can do and that we should be doing to ensure the integrity, the efficacy and the ethical conduct of gambling operators in this country. That is why I support this bill and I told the minister that. At least if you are dealing with a licensed and regulated gambling operator in this country, you can be sure that they are subject to Australian laws. You cannot guarantee you are going to be remunerated. If you are dealing with an overseas operator, you do not know about the transparency or accountability of it. Your money could be just disappearing into a black hole.

And yet there is a part of me that heard Senator Leyonhjelm's speech earlier and thought, 'We cannot be there to protect everyone from making dumb decisions themselves.' No matter how many times you have warnings from ASIC or one of the other regulators that you should not send money to unscrupulous cold callers in investments or any other form, people still do it. Then, when they lose their money, they come back and say the government should do something about it. I do not always subscribe to that. I think that ultimately people are making these decisions for themselves. Our job and the education system's job is to make sure that people are equipped to deal with the issues they are going to face in life, and that is something we have walked away from as the nanny state seeks to take away any risk from any individual.

But I do not think this legislation is going to be effective in stopping problem gambling or stopping people developing gambling habits that lead to catastrophic consequences in some areas. I wanted to speak a little bit from experience. One of the problems we have got with domestic operators is the fact that there are a lot of young people—14, 15 and 16—who have seen the odds on the screen about sports betting in particular and are lured to the websites. They input their details at a website and, although they do not have a verified account, they can go in and look at the odds on the next no-ball being bowled or who is going to kick the first goal and things like that. Children today are interested in that and go and register on it.

But imagine my surprise when I found out from some of my son's friends that, when they do this online, they suddenly get a phone call from their new friend 'Bill' or 'Bob' at one of the sporting agencies, asking them why they have not funded their account yet, never verifying that they are actually of legal age. They just ring up and say: 'Hello, John. Thanks for putting your name in. We noticed you haven't made a bet or sent any money through yet. It might be a good idea to.' The only reason I found out about this was that I was in the car when one of my son's friends took that phone call. I said, 'Who was that?' 'Oh, that was my mate at XYZ Betting agency.' You can imagine a couple of days later I rang XYZ Betting Agency, asked to speak to the general manager and told him that what they were doing was thoroughly unethical and inappropriate. I received assurances that that would not continue and they would amend their programs, but I would lay London to a brick that that same sort of marketing and online campaigning is happening at many of the regulated gambling firms in this country. It is not right. That is one way you can get it fixed.

The other aspect of regulated gambling, bet-takers and sports bookmakers was raised with me by a constituent just the other day. They said, 'The problem is they only want to deal with losers.' I can understand that: you want to make sure you are making a profit. But, if you are actually a successful punter and you ring XYZ Betting Agency, they look at your track record and they do not offer you the same odds. They say, 'No, we're not taking your money.' You no longer get the accelerated bet or the other benefits, perks and accoutrements that they advertise as a way of getting ahead. And we all see those ads on television. And so they are allowing losers to get the benefits because the chances are they are not going to win, but, if you are actually a winner, their business model says, no, you are no longer allowed to deal with them or you are going to deal on such unfavourable terms that it is unscrupulous. It is not even adhering to or providing the odds and the services that they market so readily.

The third aspect if you want to clean up problem gambling in particular in the sports arena but also in any regulated arena is to outlaw credit betting. People cannot borrow money through any regular financial agency, whether it be shares, a bank or anywhere else, without going through a plethora of checks. We say this all the time to the banking industry. You want to have a royal commission into banking because of lending practices, but you ought to look at the lending practices of some of these online gambling agencies. They do not care. 'Yeah, sure, we'll lend you $100. We'll lend you $1,000. We'll lend you $20,000, $30,000, $50,000'—until they send the bailiffs in because they know that, chances are, you are going to lose that. And so, if you said no, there is no longer credit betting for 'unsophisticated' punters, if you want to put it in the investment parlance, where people have to meet a minimum criteria where they are meant to be adult enough to look after themselves—if you said there is no more credit betting available to individuals that did not meet those criteria, you would limit the ability for individuals to get involved in gambling out of their financial depth.

This brings me to the fourth point. If you think gambling is becoming a compulsion and people are just chasing from one bet to the next to the next, the only thing that allows them to do that is either the instant transfer of money into the bookmaker's account or the ability to access credit from that bookmaker. If you have outlawed or prohibited the provision of credit to non-sophisticated or non-professional punters, however you want to describe them, and then say it is going to be a 72-hour waiting period or thereabout—48 hours or whatever you want—you are breaking that ability to cycle from one bet to another and continue to chase your losses. That is the same principle that is attached to how we deal with people who have gambling addictions, or addictions of any nature, in fact. You take away the ability for them to participate in that addictive behaviour, and you give them a chance to gather their thoughts and have a sleep on it. As our mothers always said, 'It will feel better in the morning.' Generally, it does feel better in the morning, after you have had a good night's sleep. You say, 'Okay, I have a problem. I have got to confront that. How am I going to deal with it?'

If we are serious about dealing with problem gambling in this country, and particularly online gambling, those are practical steps that perhaps this Senate and the government should consider. But the bill before us is not about problem gambling. It is about tax revenue and, in some ways, giving some level of confidence to the Australian people who want to gamble online that they are doing it with a 'reputable operator'. Once again, I put air quotes around 'reputable operator', because the problem with parts of this legislation is that ACMA is going to be providing a list of licensed bookmakers, or licensed or approved gambling service providers. I think that is fraught with danger, quite frankly. I am not sure that anyone is going to go to the ACMA website and say, 'Who can I place my Melbourne Cup bet with today?' What they will do is a Google search, and whoever has paid for the highest ranking on Google will probably get their business, if they have not already got an account.

I think it opens up the government to a bit of a problem. What if one of those gambling operators does the wrong thing? Yes, they will be held to account for it, and other things, but will the government be blamed by the punter who will say, 'This is one of your approved service providers'? I wonder about the wisdom of that intervention. I do not think it is necessary. It probably will not do any harm, but, nonetheless, if you are thinking that is a way of stamping out the problems involved with sports betting, I think it is paying lip-service to it, quite frankly.

I do support the click-to-call provision, because there is clearly a loophole. The intention is that you cannot place in-play bets online, for the reason that you could do it very, very quickly as you did not have to speak with an operator, and it led people into what could be a cycle of addiction. This provision is designed to circumvent that, because the call comes from a robot which repeats the information that you have already put into your betting app, and the bet takes place in a very short space of time. If people want to bet in-play, I do think it is reasonable for them to be in a place of gambling frequency. If they are in their local TAB, or their local pub, watching a game on TV and they want to go and place a bet on it, I really do not see a problem with that. People who are in licensed premises should have the ability to do that. If individuals want to call up and place bets, it is another way of circumventing or delaying the instant gratification response of putting a bet on, getting an immediate result and then waiting for the next one. It is that intervention period, which I talked about earlier, and how that can help break the cycle of addiction.

In the end, I will support this legislation, but I do not want it to pretend to be something that it is not. That is why I have put on the record tonight my thoughts about how, if we want to tackle problem gambling, we have to start to approach it in a better way than, and in a different way from, this bill and what it is supposed to deal with or has been characterised as dealing with. Let us see how the amendments play out. I am not sure about which amendments, if any, I will be supporting. I do want to put on the record that I am absolutely mindful of the potentially catastrophic consequences of problem gambling and what it does to individuals and families, but I am also mindful that it is not our responsibility here to protect everyone from their own inanity and foolish behaviour, and that extends to not only the process of placing bets but who they can place bets with. This bill does not really deal with any of the substantive problem-gambling issues. I do believe it is a revenue bill, albeit one dressed up in some moral guidance.

Brian Burston (NSW, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Different sectors of the community have differing opinions about the virtues of gambling. Regardless of your views on the topic, it is a reality and it is here to stay, for the foreseeable future at least.

Gamblers will tell you that there is nothing like the thrill of the win, and they downplay the losses, preferring to look forward to the next big win. Detractors will tell you that the act of gambling in any form is a sin and has no redeeming qualities, and neither do the gamblers who engage in it.

Whatever your opinion, we have to deal with what we have and manage the market so that those who engage in gambling are, in some cases, protected from themselves. We must also ensure that the organisations that enter the market conduct themselves in a manner that does as little harm to the gamblers as possible in the context of their interaction with them.

Traditionally, punters would go to the racetrack and place a bet with a bookie, or go to the TAB and bet on a horserace, a dog race or, more recently, some other sporting event. Now gambling has taken on a whole new complexion. If you want, you can bet on who kicks the first goal, who runs last, who is first to touch the ball and so on. We have grown to accept this myriad of options available to us, and gambling companies have grown with it.

Most of the types of gambling I just mentioned went into overdrive with the advent of online gambling. The combination of a gambler, an internet connection and an account with a gambling provider means you can bet on a football match in the USA, a horserace in Happy Valley in Hong Kong and a soccer match in the UK all from the comfort of your phone while you sit at home in downtown Newcastle.

Offshore companies that come to Australia to sell their services to punters generally register in the Northern Territory, paying $550,000 a year in licensing fees and taking approximately $8.6 billion from the community, while paying only $6.5 million in tax for the privilege. Their revenues go offshore and do not contribute to Australian society. The taxes stay in the Northern Territory, despite the revenue being gained from across Australia.

Add to this a new company from Gibraltar that allow punters to bet on the outcome of a lottery. They are registered in the Northern Territory, and their revenues are unknown at this stage, but all those revenues leave this country and put the livelihoods of 4½ thousand independent newsagents who rely on gambling revenues at risk. The company do not add value to the gambling process. They are truly parasites, who offset their risk by insuring against a punter having a win. There is no guarantee that they have the capacity if a punter should make a big win. There is no way of knowing if they will conduct themselves ethically in any situation they are not prepared to embrace.

One Nation's proposed amendment to the Interactive Gambling Amendment Bill 2016 calls for the banning of this particular type of operator in the gambling industry that allows punters to bet on the outcome of other lotteries or events, but it does not have any impact on other foreign companies registered in the Northern Territory.

Be under no illusion: this is a multibillion-dollar industry. The foreign companies make an absolute fortune from operations all around the world. We are not against free enterprise, nor are we against entrepreneurs making an honest dollar. I emphasise the 'honest dollar' and leave it up to you to decide what that might be. We believe that the companies that allow punters to bet on the outcome of another company's lottery are not making an honest dollar. They do not add value and are parasites on the industry, which probably does not have a whole lot of saving graces to begin with. I commend One Nation's amendment, which Senator Hanson will be introducing, to the Senate.

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have been listening to some of the speeches here tonight, and gambling is a huge issue. Senator Bernardi commented on friends that he has seen involved in gambling and on the repercussions that it has had on them. I too have known people where gambling has affected them, so I am sure we have all been touched by it. But I also agree with Senator Bernardi that gambling is a part of life. I cannot see it being wiped out at all, and I do not believe that we should. People have to be responsible for their own actions, and I would not like to see us become a nanny state. I support this bill from the government, the Interactive Gambling Amendment Bill 2016, and I will be moving an amendment.

The gambling industry is flourishing, and we ask: where does the money go? There are a few international corporate bookmakers in Australia, and they rake in $8.6 billion from sports and racing betting, yet they only contribute back to the Northern Territory government $6.5 million in tax. Licences can be bought from the Northern Territory for $550,000 a licence per annum.

Another foreign entity that is working in Australia and buys a licence from the Northern Territory is called Lottoland. Lottoland, I have been told, have a contract with a Gibraltar company. They buy a licence for $550,000 in the Northern Territory, and what they offer Australians is the ability to bet on the outcome of megalotteries around the world. It is unknown what they rake in in their turnover, but the thing is that they do not pay tax. They pay no tax in this country whatsoever. Unlike the international corporate bookmakers, Lottoland pay no tax, but what must be also considered is: can they pay on a win if there is a win?

Lottoland is jeopardising the 4½ thousand newsagents who rely on lotteries. They contribute $1.4 billion across the nation in taxes that are paid and a further $150 million in GST. Lottoland, you might think, is a big organisation, employs people and brings a lot to the country, but it does not. It only employs six people. And yet I am sure we have seen, if not hundreds of thousands, possibly even millions of dollars leaving the country, tax free.

What we have to consider and what I will be moving today is an amendment. I am led to believe that Lottoland have been shut down in France and Italy, and the UK is now looking at shutting them down. The amendment that I will move here today to part of this bill is basically to put a stop to organisations like Lottoland that provide a service relating to betting on the outcome of a lottery. Hence, what we will be doing, if my colleagues in this place support my amendment, is to stop people like the organisation Lottoland—plus a couple of others who are possibly eyeing off coming over here to do the same—ripping off, as I said, hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars out of our economy. They do not pay tax, and there is no guarantee that they will be able to pay up if anyone does have a win. I hope that people will support this amendment, because, at the end of the day, we will be looking after Australian businesses who rely on lotteries for that extra little bit of cream, because that helps keep them profitable, and probably helping Australians who may not have been paid by these organisations that may be questionable. So I hope that I get support on this amendment.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Unless there are any other colleagues who want to contribute, I will close the debate on the second reading of the Interactive Gambling Amendment Bill 2016. I thank colleagues for their contributions and for the spirit in which they have been made. I know this is an area that is of concern to most colleagues.

As colleagues know, the government is committed to strengthening the regulatory enforcement of the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 and protecting Australian interests from illegal offshore gambling operators. This bill is the first stage of a three-stage process aimed at protecting Australia's wagering, racing and sporting industries, problem and at-risk gamblers, consumers and the integrity of Australian sport. I do not think anyone here pretends that we can stop 100 per cent of money going offshore, but the government is confident that the measures in this bill will have a significant disruptive impact on illegal offshore wagering. That is the aim of this legislation—to stop as much of the illegal offshore wagering activity as we can so that where wagering by Australians takes place it does so with properly licenced onshore operators with stronger consumer protections.

The legislative amendments will prohibit a person providing regulated interactive gambling services to Australians unless the person holds a licence under the law of an Australian state or territory. The bill will clarify the licensing requirements for interactive gambling services in Australia and will provide a simple-to-establish key criterion for enforcement agencies when investigating whether to take action against unlicensed services. This bill will introduce a civil penalty regime which will be enforced by the Australian Communications and Media Authority. This amendment will allow for a quicker and more focused response as formal investigation or prosecution will not depend upon the priorities of other agencies. Civil remedies for the provision of prohibited or unlicensed interactive gambling services to Australians will carry a maximum penalty of $1.35 million per day for individuals and $6.75 million per day for organisations. The criminal provisions of the act will be maintained for more serious offences and now carry a maximum penalty of $900,000 per day for individuals and $4.5 billion per day for organisations. The reforms will enable the ACMA to notify the Department of Immigration and Border Protection of the names of directors or principals of offending gambling services so that they can be placed on the movement alert list and any travel to Australia can be disrupted.

These enforcement actions will be combined with a number of measures to build relationships with international regulators and raise awareness of Australian gambling laws and the risks associated with illegal gambling services. The bill will also, importantly, prohibit click-to-call in-play betting services. The government is committed to closing down these services, as they undermine the intent of the Interactive Gambling Act to limit the scope of problem gambling in Australia.

In addition to the bill and at the core of the government's response to the O'Farrell review is the development of a national consumer protection framework for online wagering in Australia. Can I take the opportunity of again thanking Mr O'Farrell for his work. This is indeed one of the largest reforms to the online wagering industry since the introduction of the Interactive Gambling Act in 2001. On 25 November last year Commonwealth, state and territory ministers gave in-principle agreement to key aspects of the national consumer protection framework. This includes a national self-exclusion register for online wagering, a voluntary opt-out pre-commitment scheme for online wagering and prohibition of lines of credit being offered by online wagering providers. This government will continue to work with the states and territories to develop the framework to ensure that there is a strong, robust set of national standards for online wagering that will provide greater protection for Australian consumers. The government will also be consulting with internet service and financial payment providers around disruption measures to further reduce illegal offshore gambling activity.

I would like to turn briefly to some of the issues that senators have raised in this debate so far, some of which will no doubt be the subject of amendments moved in the committee stage. Firstly, I will turn to Labor's second reading amendment that has been circulated. The government certainly does acknowledge that there is a level of community concern in relation to gambling advertising. This is something I have raised with the broadcasters. It is important for the broadcasters to ensure that their advertising is conducted in a way that reflects community standards. Indeed, this is the objective of the co-regulatory framework of codes of practice that is in place and which the government supports. I note that the opposition also supports the co-regulatory framework. Suffice to say in relation to Labor's second reading amendment, we do not agree with making policy by way of second reading amendments, so we will not be supporting that put forward by the opposition.

I will turn now to the Greens' amendments. The amendment in Senator Di Natale's name is in relation to gambling advertising. For similar reasons, the government will not be supporting Senator Di Natale's amendment. Senator Rhiannon's amendment was on expansion of gambling. The government will not be supporting Senator Rhiannon's amendment. It is not correct to allege that this bill will lead to an expansion of the Australian gambling market as the amendment suggests. The bill only preserves the status quo and clarifies the act; it does not enable activities that were not previously permitted. Far from leading to an expansion of the gambling market, the bill in fact achieves the opposite through its closing of the click-to-call in-play betting loophole. The government also rejects the slur in the second part of the amendment.

I will turn now to the NXT amendments. NXT colleagues have raised a number of issues in their contributions. I think it is fair to characterise many of the NXT amendments as foreshadowed as largely seeking to implement elements of the government's response to the O'Farrell review, which we are seeking to implement as part of the national consumer protection framework with the states and territories. The government believes that it is important that we work with the states and territories, as much of the regulation of wagering is in state and territory legislation. It is states and territories that license wagering operators, and it is state and territory regulators that are largely responsible for compliance and enforcement. The government is absolutely committed to implementing the national framework. There has already been a meeting of the Commonwealth with state and territory gaming ministers and in-principle agreement was reached to implement the elements of the framework. So, while the government agrees with much of the substance of the NXT amendments, we will not be supporting them, as we feel it is more appropriate to pursue those elements through the process that is already well underway with our state and territory counterparts.

In terms of Senator Kakoschke-Moore's amendment in relation to place-based betting services, there has already been some concern expressed around the bill's clarification of in-play betting being permitted in licensed retail venues on electronic terminals. The bill that is before the Senate seeks to do nothing more than preserve the status quo. The Interactive Gambling Act was not intended to regulate activities in retail venues. It is about regulating the online space. In-play betting is currently permitted and takes place in retail venues on electronic betting terminals. In some venues, these are fixed terminals; in others, customers can load money onto a tablet. As I said, the bill seeks to do nothing more than preserve the status quo. It will not be permitted to offer in-play betting on personal devices—I should make that very clear. Nor will it be permitted to offer in-play betting by electronic means via a customer's online account. The establishments that we are talking about here are monitored by staff trained in the responsible service of gaming and alcohol. These establishments can only be accessed by adults. They do not permit intoxicated persons to remain on the premises. They have set opening and closing times and only accept cash payments. These elements provide a level of harm minimisation that would not be available in a private dwelling, using a personal device.

The bill reflects an important distinction between equipment that is provided in a regulated environment, which is available to all customers, and gambling on personal devices used in the home or other private places which would not be subject to harm minimisation controls. As stated in our government response to the illegal offshore wagering review, we are not expanding the range of gambling products in Australia. The bill is simply clarifying the services that are currently permitted under Commonwealth, state and territory laws. Further, the Commonwealth's legislation only deals with devices on which in-play betting is permitted. Other than for the issue of in-play betting, the legislative framework and regulations for betting on in-venue devices is a matter for each state and territory. If there are concerns about portable devices, it is open to each state and territory to limit their use or prohibit them in retail venues, if they see fit.

I turn now to Senator Leyonhjelm's amendment relating to online poker—a further matter which has been raised in the context of this bill. The government is aware that a number of Australians currently access online poker sites. Online poker is and always has been a prohibited service under the IGA. It has always been the intent of the IGA to prohibit this service being offered to Australians. That is why there are no Australian licensed operators of online poker, but because the law has been ambiguous overseas operators have been freely offering these services to Australians. With the law being clarified, it is evident that a number of these operators have begun withdrawing their services from Australians. Whilst I appreciate that this is not welcomed by those individuals who have been using these services, it is a fact that online poker has always been a prohibited service under the act. It is not something that this bill is enacting. Whether online poker should be legal in Australia or not is a separate debate. I indicate that the government has no plans to liberalise online poker, and in terms of this bill the government has merely sought to ensure that the original intent of the legislation is upheld.

I should also acknowledge that One Nation have flagged an intention to move an amendment in relation to Lottoland. I thank One Nation for making contact during the second reading debate to indicate that they would be doing this. Let me just say at this point that, in relation to that foreshadowed amendment, the bill before us is intended to tackle illegal offshore wagering. Lottoland is, at present, neither illegal nor offshore. It is a licensed service in the Northern Territory. So it would be fair to say that that foreshadowed amendment is beyond the intended scope of this bill, but, as always, when colleagues put a proposition before us, we will always take on board what is put before us. But I think on this occasion, in the time available to us and given the scope of this bill, it is not possible for us to examine it and to support it in the context of this legislation.

In conclusion, since the introduction of the bill in November last year, a number of major offshore gambling operators have ceased providing or indicated that they will withdraw their prohibited services as Australia will no longer be a grey market when it comes to gambling laws. This bill does send a clear message to overseas operators and regulators that Australia is serious about compliance with its online gambling laws. International experience has shown that illegal offshore betting cannot be eradicated in its entirety. However, a combination of clearer laws, an active regulator, stronger enforcement measures and awareness activities can significantly reduce illegal gambling activity.

The bill has been developed in consultation with many stakeholders across the wagering, racing and sporting industries, academia, responsible gambling organisations, consumers and governments. I look forward to continuing to work with stakeholders to progress the National Consumer Protection Framework.

I should indicate that I will be working closely with my ministerial colleague Mr Tudge, who has put a tremendous effort into this area, and it is appropriate that I acknowledge that. There is more work to be done. As indicated, it is a three-stage process. I commend the bill to my colleagues.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator O'Neill be agreed to.

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move Greens second reading amendment on sheet 8059 standing in my name:

At the end of the motion, add:

", but the Senate supports a complete prohibition of all gambling advertising, including but not limited to all television and venue advertising."

Question negatived.

Lee Rhiannon (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move Greens amendment on sheet 8056 standing in my name:

At the end of the motion, add:

", but the Senate notes this Bill is likely to lead to an expansion of the Australian gambling market through in-play betting in TABs, clubs and licenced premises and questions the rationale for such an approach in light of Labor and Liberal parties having received $10,460,819 in political donations from gambling interests over the past ten years.".

Question negatived.

Original question, as amended, agreed to.

Bill read a second time.